Nats’ Crafar Farm kickback

Written By: - Date published: 12:17 pm, February 16th, 2012 - 43 comments
Categories: election 2011, overseas investment - Tags: ,

On November 30th, after the election, National received a $55,000 donation from Oravida. It’s a Chinese-owned company whose former owner, Terry Lee, is director of Pengxin’s Crafar Farms vehicle, Milk New Zealand, and co-owns a company, Natural Pure, with Pengxin owner Jiang Zhaobai that is intended to be one of the two dairy brands using Crafar Farms milk.

In light of National’s illegal decision to let Pengxin buy the farms despite a lack of real benefits to New Zealand and their seeming determination to approve the sale again, despite the ruling, maybe we ought to examine that donation a little  more closely.

And, while we’re at it, can we ask some questions about the soft loans that Pengxin gets from the Chinese government to fund its international purchases of strategic assets, and how deep the links between Pengxin and the Chinese dictatorship really go?

43 comments on “Nats’ Crafar Farm kickback ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1
    16 February 2012 at 12:39 pm

    The National Party makes no secret of the fact that government policy is for sale. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the National Party is for sale too.

    At what point does this become a matter for the Police and/or the Security Intelligence Service?

    • vto 1.1
      16 February 2012 at 12:43 pm

      no no no no ……. We should buy it. If everyone else in NZ put in, say $10, then we could buy the party ourselves ….

      deal done.

      non mas problemas.

    • Hami Shearlie 1.2
      16 February 2012 at 3:21 pm

      True! The Nats are indeed for sale. But who on earth would want to buy Tau Henare?? They couldn’t give him away!!!

  2. ghostwhowalksnz 2
    16 February 2012 at 12:51 pm

    They have gone from –

    we have to approve it or it will be challenged in court-

    to we have to change to law so no one else can challenge it in court.

    Special deals for special friends

  3. Adrian 3
    16 February 2012 at 1:01 pm

    can you give a reference for the 55k, then we could all write a letter to our local rag and put some pressure on. This does stink of corruption.

  4. mickysavage 4
    16 February 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Wow talk about joining the dots …

  5. vto 5
    16 February 2012 at 2:17 pm

    They are getting cocky and starting to make mistakes. Big mistakes.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      16 February 2012 at 2:58 pm

      Not sure if “cocky” characterises it. More like they know they are on their last strike and are determined to mess up and play up in the Big Brother house before being evicted.

  6. Dave Kennedy 6
    16 February 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Too much about the Crafar sale doesn’t stack up and when you have Federated Farmers agreeing with the Green Party on this issue, it’s time to have a serious rethink!
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/crafar-farm-sale-exposes-shoddy.html

    • Hami Shearlie 6.1
      16 February 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Federated Farmers agreeing with the Greens of all parties! It shows even the Nats farmer buddies know there’s a nasty smell emanating from the Crafar deal!

  7. RedLogix 7
    16 February 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Zet… respect. As for the Nats, what really broils me is Key, Williamson and their lackey’s like O’Sullivan using the race card to shut down the dissent.

    When it turns out that they were covering for their own venal deals. Can I use the ‘c-word’ now?

    • vto 7.1
      16 February 2012 at 2:59 pm

      RedLogix, it is quite clear that when they call someone racist in these circumstances it exposes them as the racists for seeing it in that manner.

    • Hami Shearlie 7.2
      16 February 2012 at 3:26 pm

      Which “c” word do you mean RL? There are just so many of them that apply to the Nats and Auntie Fran aren’t there? It’s just so hard to choose!

  8. Jackal 8
    16 February 2012 at 2:58 pm

    I’m pretty sure National received a substantial donation directly from Pengxin Group in 2010 as well… but as the Electoral Commission has removed the relevant information, cannot provide evidence.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    16 February 2012 at 3:00 pm

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

    1.) No companies should be able to donate to political parties
    2.) No foreign nationals (be they individuals or businesses) should be able to donate to political parties

    And, yes, this donation from a foreign company to National certainly has the reek of corruption all over it.

    • Hami Shearlie 9.1
      16 February 2012 at 3:28 pm

      In my opinion John Key and the Nats have been soaking in a bathtub of corruption for many many years now. The reek can’t be disguised for much longer!

    • Graeme Edgeler 9.2
      16 February 2012 at 4:26 pm

      Foreign nationals and businesses are quite limited in what that can donate – no more than $1500.

      • Macro 9.2.1
        16 February 2012 at 4:58 pm

        So how do the donations reported in the Herald on the 8th Dec last year stack up? Is it not against the Act?

        • Chris 9.2.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 6:22 pm

          They are New Zealand companies I would post a link to the companies office but it was too long and I don’t know how to make it show up properly.

          Also if you don’t believe it is easy enough to check but Oravida is there.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2
        16 February 2012 at 5:45 pm

        Foreign nationals and businesses have no business in our politics so they can fuck off altogether.

  10. Ross 10
    16 February 2012 at 3:27 pm

    To be fair, this information was publicly disclosed last year…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10771749

    • RedLogix 10.1
      16 February 2012 at 3:35 pm

      And now the payback is undeniable.

      Key’s government went ahead with this deal knowing that it would be politically costly … but had calculated that if they kept their Chinese paymasters happy that it would all be worthwhile. Hell even John Armstrong says exactly as much in his column today.

      Now they’ve taken a quadruple hit; they’ve pissed off a LOT of New Zealanders, they’ve dug themselves a legal hole from which there is no elegant exit strategy, and they’ve made themselves look like fools to the Chinese by promising something they haven’t delivered.

      But this evidence of ‘policy for sale’ .. or corruption as us ordinary people like to call it…. is the biggest hit of all. Ultimately we now have irrefutable evidence that the Nats are happy to sell us out.

      Us ordinary people have a word for that too.

    • ianmac 10.2
      16 February 2012 at 3:37 pm

      Mind you Ross those donations might put a different slant on the issue re the Crafar farms. Greater awareness?

      • Ross 10.2.1
        17 February 2012 at 9:02 am

        I’m not sure what you mean. Pengxin already had their offer on the table when that article was written.

        The issue for Labour is that it’s not entirely clear what (if anything) they’d do differently.

        • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1
          17 February 2012 at 4:31 pm

          The issue for Labour is that it’s not entirely clear what (if anything) they’d do differently.

          Is Crafar farms over 5ha. in size?

          Because Labour would turn down any land sale over 5ha. as the default decision. Seems different to me.

  11. ianmac 11
    16 February 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Not sure that I read this elsewhere and slightly off topic but Tim reports on Pundit that Justice Miller also ruled:
    “And, Miller argues, simply offering a higher price for the land doesn’t equate to a greater benefit. Justice Miller writes”:

    The Act finds New Zealand ownership of sensitive assets desirable, and it advances that preference in several ways; for example, by requiring that sensitive land first be offered for sale to non-overseas persons. By excluding financial benefits to the vendor, s17 ensures that an overseas investor cannot pass that benefit test merely by outbidding others”.
    So more money is not the only factor even though the Receiver refused to accept the Fay bid.

    • Herodotus 11.1
      16 February 2012 at 5:30 pm

      A higher price does not benfit NZ inc. The only winners are the banks (aussie Banks) (as they re coup their debt), as I take it that the unsecured creditors will not see a cent.
      So how does a higher price for the farms benefit NZ as I cannot see any? It’s not like we are selling power coys and the govt deficits reduce by a higher price 😉

  12. Chris 12
    16 February 2012 at 6:19 pm

    What does the fact that he used to own the company have to do with anything? He wasn’t the owner when they made the donation and as far as I can tell (and I assume you as well since that the fact he used to own it is the most proof offered) has no link at all with the new owners who are effectively the ones making the donation.

    • alwyn 12.1
      17 February 2012 at 12:45 pm

      Don’t be silly Chris. We don’t need logic or truth when attacking the Government.
      In the same vein I have been told that a flat that David Shearer lived in when he was a University student was involved in drug dealing in, I think, 2006. Why has he not been arrested and charged? Clearly he is an accessory before the fact. There is obviously corruption involved if he is being kept out of jail!
      OK, I’m making it up, but it is no sillier than the primary story.

      • Matt 12.1.1
        17 February 2012 at 1:30 pm

        Nope, whatever you do, don’t look at the connections. It is amazing what you won’t find if you don’t look for it.

        • Chris 12.1.1.1
          17 February 2012 at 3:47 pm

          There is no real connection that is the point

          • Matt 12.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2012 at 4:24 pm

            Perhaps you need a refresher course on the meaning of connection.

            • Chris 12.1.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2012 at 9:32 am

              Perhaps you need a refresher course on what people who don’t own the business anymore can do with the said business. Here’s a hint its the same as you can do with the money that you spent yesterday

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 February 2012 at 10:13 am

                Oh I guess having the cell phone numbers of all the senior managers currently in the business is not a “connection”. Or any existing commercial agreements he might have with the company to supply needed contacts, goods or services either one way or both ways.

                • Chris …
                  18 February 2012 at 11:19 am

                  First off no having phone numbers is not a connection and it is ridiculous to even say it is. I have the phone numbers of a lot of people that I would consider I have no connection with.

                  I’ll concede maybe commercial arrangements may exist but there is no evidence of that at all so it is very flimsy.

  13. Eduardo Kawak 13
    16 February 2012 at 6:48 pm

    I read just now that the Chinese Consulate visited the OIO in August last year. The visit has been raised in Parliament.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/98626/chinese-consulate-met-with-oio-staff

    This story is getting uglier and uglier.

  14. John Dalley 14
    16 February 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Any figures seen from the Waitemata Trust as yet? Will be interested to find out who donates to Nationals blind trust?
    With the days of Anon hacking in to the CIA & others, surely this trust should be a piece of cake to any hacker worth his salt.

  15. Ben 15
    17 February 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Can anyone show me the evidence that links Terry Lee with Oravida, and proves that Oravida are owned by Chinese nationals?

    • McFlock 15.1
      17 February 2012 at 4:43 pm

      Companies Office for directorships. Shareholdings seem to be through the accountants – I’m not sure on whether that can be a proxy of some sort to hide true ownership.  But halfway there inside 30sec.